MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radical hysterectomy teaching module with a three‐dimensional digital model of the female pelvis

2012· article· en· W3173767936 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samantha Kay Dunnigan, Hai M. Nguyen, Marjorie Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlossaryTerminologyComputer sciencePelvisMedicineMedical physicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performing radical hysterectomy requires thorough knowledge of pelvic anatomy, which is complex and difficult to visualize. The goal of this project is to create a teaching tool to enable surgeons worldwide to improve their understanding of pelvic anatomy, leading to less invasive procedures and better patient outcomes. The pelvic model was created using AMIRA, a 3D segmentation and surface‐rendering program. Anatomical areas of interest were labeled on consecutive 2D slices from the Visible Human Project, which were then reassembled to form a 3D model and incorporated into animated videos. An animated instructional program based on radical hysterectomy was created, which includes rotational viewing, real‐life video, clinical narration, correlated imaging, labeling and a glossary. The glossary standardizes anatomic and surgical terminology to help overcome language barriers when training doctors whose native language is not English. Due to the detail, ease of use and versatility, this tool will be an excellent resource for surgeons training to perform radical hysterectomy, allowing for better patient outcomes especially in developing countries where this technology was not previously available. Grant Funding Source : Ontario Graduate Scholarship

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1160.012

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207